Transcript Slide 1

Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low:
Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups
Harris & Fiske (2006)

Stereotype Content Model (SCM)

Predicts differentiated prejudices

Warm (high or low): Friend or foe? Help or harm?

Competent (high or low): Able to carry out
intentions?
SCM

2 x 2 matrix yields four emotions: Envy, Pride, Disgust,
& Pity.
Competence
Low
High
High
Warmth
Low
Harris & Fiske (2006)
SCM


Disgust (low, low) is unique: it can target
either humans or nonhumans (here, people =
objects)
Are those who are stereotyped low/low
perceived as nonhumans (i.e., dehumanized)?
Harris & Fiske (2006)
SCM

MRI data demonstrate mPFC is activated
when people make judgments about
about people (social cognition), not
objects.
Harris & Fiske (2006)
Harris & Fiske (2006)

SCM
Study 1:



Present pictures depicting the four SCM
quadrants.
Each picture rated on four emotions
Question: did the pictures from each quadrant
elicit the predicted emotions?
Quadrant
Pride
Envy
Pity
Disgust
.70(.10)
.52(.10)
.83(.05)
.64(.06)
Pictures in each quadrant were rated as elicitingn the predicted emotin at a rate well above chance.
Standard errors are given in paraentheses.
Harris & Fiske (2006)
Harris & Fiske (2006)
(low/low)
(Rated disgusting)
Note: The absence of the typical neural signature for social cognition in
response to people who were seen as disgusting.
Harris & Fiske (2006)
Infrahumanization
Leyens et al., 2003





Infrahumanization: Some humans are considered less
human than others
The essence of humanness: language, intelligence, &
secondary emotions
But privilege can affect language and intelligence
Secondary emotions: Response times shorter when
secondary emotions associated with human (e.g., hair)
versus nonhuman features (e.g., fur)
Secondary emotions associated with humans, more so
than animals
Primary, Secondary, & Tertiary Emotions
(Plutchnik, 1993)
Infrahumanization
Leyens et al., 2003


Ingroup members more often select and associate
secondary emotions with the ingroup; primary emotions
associated more often with outgroup (Leyens et al.,
2001)
Using Implicit Association Test: Ingroup members
(French or Spanish) more readily associated with
primary emotions; outgroup members (Arabs or Flemish)
more readily associated with secondary emotions than
the reverse combination (Paladino et al., 2002)
Infrahumanization Effect
Leyens et al., 2003



Is reciprocal: for dominant and non-dominant
groups
Increases with increases in-group identification
Appears in conflict and non-conflict situations,
though valence might be a factor
Infrahumanization
Leyens et al., 2003

Infrahumanization is reduced



When perspective taking is used (Cortez,
2002)
When members of the outgroup are
individualized (i.e., given first or last name!)
(Leyens et al., 2003)
However, individualizing an outgroup member
does not mean outgroup generalization will
take place (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000)
Enemy Images

Diabolical Enemy Image (White, 1965)

Image of the Enemy (Frank, 1967)

Enemy Images (Holsti & Fagan, 1967)

Image Theory (Cottam, 1977)

Mirror Images (Bronfenbrenner, 1986)

Enemy Images: A Cognitive Perspective
(Silverstein, 1989)
Image Theory
Alexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)




Fiske provided a reductionistic view of
stereotypes
In contrast, Alexander et al. are linking-up
stereotypes with political structures
Structural features of the relationship yield
various image types
Providing a more differentiated view of
images
Image Theory
Alexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)
Structural Features
of Relationship
1. Goal Compatibility (intent)
2. Relative Power (capability)
3. Relative Cultural Status
Image
Image Theory: Enemy as One Image Type
Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)
Structural Features
of Relationship
Image Type
1. Goal Compatibility (Low)
2. Relative Power (Equal)
3. Relative Cultural Status (Equal)
Enemy
Enemy Image
& Spiral Model of Interaction
Enemy
Image
Attack
or Deter
Threat
Loosening
of Moral
Constraints
Image Theory
Alexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)


Assumption: Accurate diagnosis (of
relationship) leads to more accurate predictions
of other nation’s reactions
International Images Vary Geohistorically:



US-Soviet Image during Cold War = Enemy
Iranian and Iraqi Images of US: From Ally to
Imperialist (Herrmann & Fischerkeller, 1995)
There is Within Group Variation in Images

Individual difference factors?
Image Theory
Alexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)



What images characterize Arab nations’ views of the
US?
Best guess: (1) incompatible goals, (2) US more
powerful, and (3) US culturally inferior (Lewis, 1990) =
Barbarian
Intragroup variations: Arabs should have expecially
favorable image of their group relative to others if they


have strong group identification (according to SIT)
low social dominance orientation (i.e., do not favor and
identify strongly with powerful groups)
Image Theory
Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)


Group Identification and Social Dominance
Orientation were individual difference variables
It was expected that Group identification (e.g.,
High Arab, Palestinian, or Muslim identity; Low
Christian and Western identity) and SDO would
affect the degree of endorsement of Barbarian
image, independent of Perceived Structure of
the Relationship,
Image Theory
Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)


Method: Query (a) Lebanese students’ perceived
international relationships and images of the US, (b)
cultural and religious identities, and (c) social dominance
orientation
Results:




(1) Perceived structure (pattern) of relationship:
incompatible goals, high power, low status
(2) Images: Barbarian most strongly endorsed
(3) (1) & (2) highly correlated
(4) status negatively correlated with barbarian
Image Theory
Alexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)
Table 2. Correlations between Individual Orientations and the Barbarian Image of the U.S., and
Partial Correlations Controlling for Relative Power, Status, and Goal Incompatibility of the U.S.
r
Individual Orientation
Partial r
Arab Identification
.32***
.27**
Palestinian Identification
.39***
.32***
Muslim Identification
.19+
.06
Christian Identification
-.30*
-.29*
Western Identification
-.38***
-.30***
Social Dominance Orientation
-.30***
-.31***
+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
+
p
Toward a measure of patriotic and
nationalistic attitudes
(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)



Floyd Allport hints at such a distinction (1927)
Research in 1940s and 50s blur the distinction
Research on the Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al.,
1950) blurred the distinction


One of the three ethnocentrism scales: Patriotism …
“blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical
conformity with the prevailing group ways, and rejection of
other national as outgroups (p. 107).”
Doob (1964)

“There is no reason to suppose that the personality traits
associated with love of country are the same as those connected
with hostility toward foreign countries or foreigners (p. 128).”
Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes



Mostly UCLA students (N = 239)
Factor Analysis: six factor solution,
accounting for 38% of the variance
Factors: Patriotism, Nationalism,
Internationalism, Civil Liberties, World
Government, Smugness!
(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Patriotism
(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Nationalism
(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Internationism
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Civil Liberties
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
World Government
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Smugness
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Discriminant Validity
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Patriotism and Nationalism

Only 8 percent of variance accounted for by civil
liberties, world government, and smugness

Patriotism: Attachment to nation

Nationalism: National superiority and dominance

Internationalism: Emphasis on sharing, welfare, empathy
P
(egalitarian values)
P
N
N
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
Patriotism & Nationalism:
Statistically and functionally distinguishable
Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)